I believe those goalposts have always been way farther out than many people think. If you look at the discussion around Turing's original Imitation Game paper,

I believe those goalposts have always been way farther out than many people think. If you look at the discussion around Turing's original Imitation Game paper, you'll find people wanting the machine to be able to do things that most humans cannot. And its perfectly valid to do so. If you regard "an especially stupid person" as someone with significant cognitive or communication limits, then Parry and Eliza's Doctor are pretty fair simulations of paranoid schizophrenia (as it was understood at the time) and Rogerian therapy. Likewise, chess and go AIs are pretty damn smart, except they can't do anything else. The point is that, if you accept limits on what the machine needs to do, then "intelligence" as defined by behavior you can recognize becomes trivially and meaninglessly easy. (It's sort of like evaluating a person's competence: a minority person has to be more competent than their cohort because non-minority people get the benefit of the doubt.)